Q.120 marks · 250w 20 min Hard
You are a Public Information Officer (PIO) in a government department. You are aware that the RTI Act, 2005 envisages transparency and accountability in administration. The Act has functioned as a check on the supposedly arbitrarily administrative behaviour and actions. However, as a PIO you have observed that there are citizens who filed RTI applications not for themselves but on behalf of such stakeholders who purportedly want to have access to information to further their own interests. At the same time there are those RTI activists who routinely file RTI applications and attempt to extort money from the decision makers. This type of RTI activism has affected the functioning of the administration adversely and also possibly jeopardises the genuineness of the applications which are essentially aimed at getting justice. What measures would you suggest to separate genuine and non-genuine applications? Give merits and demerits of your suggestions.
Subtopic: Case Study · RTI misuse and administrative integrity
Show model answer outline
Introduction → the PIO's concern → constraint that RTI needs no motive → measures to reduce misuse without screening intent → merits and demerits of each → Conclusion
Key points- Section 6(2) of the RTI Act forbids asking the applicant's motive — so intent-based screening is legally invalid.
- The remedy must target abuse of process (extortion, flooding), not the right to information itself.
- Strong Section 4 proactive disclosure is the single best cure — it removes the need to file.
- Extortion and blackmail are separately punishable under criminal law; use that, not RTI curbs.
- Personal and institutional integrity removes the leverage that blackmailers exploit.
- Any fee or format measure must not deter genuine, poor applicants seeking justice.
- Overzealous filters risk defeating transparency and shielding wrongdoing.